Calling a constitutional convention
By Bruce Walker
web posted September 29, 2003
The shenanigans of federal courts have become so outrageous
that a permanent change is essential if America is to continue as
America. Judicial appointments, blocked by a Democrat minority
in the Senate, will not undo the damage. Waiting decades to get
a small majority on the Supreme Court to reverse a few
decisions will not stop the trend toward indifferent, centralized
and undemocratic elitist leftist rule.
What can be done? Nothing illegal or extra-constitutional will
work. This new American revolution must be constructed upon
firm legal grounds or America will descend into the sort of
banana republic system that France became. Since our
Constitution was adopted, France has had no less than five
different republics (excluding Vichy) with the last version
imposed by Charles DeGaulle in the late 1950s.
The resort to extra-legal means will only empower the left, which
believes all "law" is simply a means for those on the right side of
history to impose their will, to throw the few remaining scraps of
the Constitution into the trash bin. We must find a sure, clear and
unmistakable way of properly changing the Constitution. The
way - the only way actually prescribed in the Constitution - is by
amending the Constitution.
There are two methods of proposing an amendment, but only
one has ever been used: both houses of Congress propose a
particular amendment by a two-thirds vote in each house. There
are two methods of adopting an amendment, but only one has
ever been used: the legislatures of three-quarters of the states
approve the amendment.
The problems with this process are well known. Americans
overwhelmingly support term limits, for example, and yet there
are enough members of the House of Representatives who come
from safe districts or enough members of the Senate who have
just won re-election to a six year term to keep any genuine
amendments from reforming our system of government.
Washington insiders can work wonders in dilatory and
obfuscatory tactics. How many real reforms have been adopted
during the last eighty years? None. Direct election of senators
and the suffragette amendment were the last two amendments
that really affected the national government.
The Constitution, however, retained great powers within states,
and particular within that most important part of the entire federal
system, the legislatures of the several states. How easy to forget
that state legislatures not only held predominate power in state
governments, which were the center of most government power
until the Civil War, but that state legislatures chose both the
members of the United States Senate and the electors who
chose the President of the United States.
Recognizing that Congress might grow remote and isolated from
the public will, the Constitution provides ways around Congress
in amending the Constitution. Two-thirds of the legislatures of the
several states may call a constitutional convention. Although this
convention sounds as it is intended to address a particular issue,
like term limits, nothing prevents the constitutional convention
from doing precisely what the men in Philadelphia did - propose
major reforms in the structure of government.
Is this possible? Public frustration with judicial usurpation of state
elections is growing. Inane promotion of militant atheism as the
dogma of American government offends millions. There are half
a dozen issues which the people who change if they felt that they
had the power. And easily the most responsive part of the
federal governmental system are the state legislatures, whose
members are elected for two or four year terms and whose
districts often encompass an area not much bigger than a medium
sized town.
Thirty-four states would need to pass resolutions to call a
constitutional convention. Twenty-one states currently have state
legislatures in which both houses are controlled by Republicans.
Eight states in the Old Confederacy have at least one house
controlled by Democrats, but have very conservative
constituencies. Nebraska has a non-partisan, unicameral
legislature, but it is a strongly Republican and conservative state.
Five other states have Republican control of one house and a
narrow Democrat majority (or even a tie) in the other house.
A solid majority of states are moderately conservative and
conservatives are highly connected with cyber-news systems.
State legislators are extraordinarily susceptible to phone calls,
letters and visits from constituents (who are their friends,
neighbors, customers and parishioners.)
Moreover, once it appeared that conservative states were going
to call a constitutional convention - with or without Leftist
support - then there would be great pressure to agree to go
involve (rather like the decision of Texas Democrats, once it was
clear that the redistricting would proceed, to go ahead and show
up.)
What then? Conservatives and Republicans have the numbers in
any such convention, and the ground rules should be fair but firm.
The Constitutional Convention could gain much heartland
support by first agreeing to meet far from Washington. Wichita,
Salt Lake City, Nashville, Omaha, Indianapolis - each might be
good meeting places, or maybe rotation in the meetings would be
wise.
Another option would be not to "meet" at any place at all.
Governmental bodies do not need to physically get together with
modern technology. Why not have the Arkansas delegation stay
in Little Rock, the Iowa delegation stay in Des Moines and the
Colorado delegation stay in Denver? Why not let these delegates
stay with the people who they are intending to represent?
Once two-thirds of the states agreed on a rather innocuous
amendment - term limits of twelve years for members of
Congress - how should it be approved? Thirty-eight states, or
four more than those needed to call a convention, could approve
the amendment. Moreover, while past constitutional amendments
provide that Congress shall have the power to enforce this
change, nothing would prevent this enforcement power from
being delegated instead to state legislatures.
The real beauty of a constitutional convention, however, is that it
determines its own rules. Here is a thought: why not provide that
it meets continuously, with need members of state delegations
chosen after state legislative elections? This would make the
constitutional convention - controlled exclusively by state
legislatures - have the power to trump any federal judicial,
legislative or executive action. If the Supreme Court tried to
contort sensible amendments into nonsense, an amendment
correcting the Supreme Court could be quickly passed.
Indeed, this constitutional convention could do more than that. It
could allow amendments to also be referred to the people for a
plebiscite. It could provide this or other mechanism for
specifically overruling any federal judicial decision. Would it run
rampant over our political and civil rights?
What political or civil rights remain unmolested by courts and by
bureaucrats? These rights we cherish came from the
governments of the states - those thirteen independent nations
which combined to make up the United States - and these rights
were protected at that level by the proximity of the governed to
their governors. Why do Leftists sweat when plebiscites are
placed on ballots or when elected officials are recalled or term
limits are proposed?
There would be nothing to prevent the perpetual constitutional
convention I have proposed from adding additional protections
against hasty amendments, if that made people feel better. Why
not, for example, add the additional condition that any proposed
amendment must also be approved by a majority of the popular
vote and by the majority of popular vote in the several states?
We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union established our Constitution for the United States
of America. We, the People of the United States, can be trusted
- through those officials closest to us, our state legislators - to
preserve and protect that Constitution. We can and we should.
Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is
also a frequent contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common
Conservative.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com